Re: annoyance: undo does not reset "modified" status

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 03:54:19PM +0200, Adam Byrtek / alpha wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:01:25PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > i often accidentally do minor modifications (mostly partial escape
> > sequences) which i undo of course. anyway, afterwards i still don't
> > know if this was the only modification.
> Patch attached.
thanks. does this re-assert the modified state if you undo past the save
point? theoretically this would be correct. otoh, it's quite simple to
miss this point if you hold your fingers on "undo". the optimal thing
would be not undoing the stack wrap as a result of key auto-repeat - a
simple timer, e.g., 'more than 5 times the same sequence in the last
second == auto-repeat' would be sufficient, i think.

> BTW I'm not sure if it is wide to undo every cursor movement. IMO
> pop_action should apply EVERY movement action till the last action
> which actually modified something
this is a quite controversial question, in fact. i'm very often annoyed
by vim because it does not treat movements (and selections, fwiw) as
undoable actions. otoh i sometimes wish mc would merge movements into
blocks. i'm just not sure what the correct rules are. maybe temporally
close "simple movements" (cursor keys) should be merged, while "big
jumps" (like search next) are not merged.  this would be less an issue
for me if cooledit supported bookmarks and "jump to start/end of

> (including this action).
you mean, undo means "undo last editing action plus all following
movements"? NO WAY! i absolutely HATE this behaviour in vim. while
merging moves is negotiable, pretending that they don't exist is
absolutely out of question for me.


Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]